The Holocaust: Where Are All of the Bodies??

[2aguy]

It's insulting to humanity to question the legitimacy of the Holocaust.

That isn't what the post was about...is that what you think he thread is about?

 

[emilynghiem]

Did some of the people posting here actually read what PoliticalChic posted....it doesn't seem like it from some of theses posts...

Hi Billc: I decided to address this in a way that points to solutions not more division.

I get that PC and others are debating if you can blame Hitler/Holocaust on the leftwing or rightwing.
Either way that genocide based on ill will and retribution caused mass destruction.
Why not focus on what is going to heal the roots of such killing and mob mentality?
Does it matter if it is left or right, but the common factor is the abuse of power to oppress kill and destroy
with no due process or equal protections and defense, but complete obliteration of opposition int he name of dominance?

If you want to argue if Jefferson was Democrat or Republican you can go in circles all day.
Half the people will say the southern slavery was promoted by Democrats and half will keep blaming Republicans.

What good does that do in solving the aftermath of slavery?

So instead of playing into the game that goes nowhere,
I choose to address the points of agreement that will lead to a solution to end oppression.

Can we agree that regardless of left or right wing labels,
NOBODY wants to be oppressed by an opposing political faction threatening to take over and rule by dominance.

both left and right object to that.
so why not agree to stop the bullying if none of us wants to be under it?

I decided to address that factor which is common concerns on both sides
regardless if right blames left or left blames right. nobody agrees to be oppressed by force.
we all want freedom whether we call it civil liberties, religious freedom or freedom of choice.

why can't we fight together where we both win instead of fighting each other where we both lose?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's insulting to humanity to question the legitimacy of the Holocaust.

That isn't what the post was about...is that what you think he thread is about?

If PC used that question for bait in the topic, is it any wonder that people replied to it.

Since it was the topic in the subject, I think it is fair that people reply to that as well.
We need to resolve all aspects and angles of this historic issue
especially since a lot of the same questions have come up again with ISIS.
And how do we respond to that to prevent greater genocide that has already started.
How do we unite, bringing all people of all nations together to end the scourge on all levels?

PC wanted to fight about one angle, but there are many others that can be resolved at the same time.
why not address them all?

 

[Saigon]

Billc -

It simply is not possible that you have read about this subject for years or sudied it at university and yet still don't understand dictionary definitions of terms like 'fascism'.

This is not a competition, nor is it a matter of opinion.

Almost any dictionary will confirm that fascism is right wing, and any of one hundreds of history books will explain why. There are very good reasons why you have not read those, and we both know that you aren't going to start reading them now.

At the moment you are a first-time golder standing at the tee who swings and misses, swings and misses, swings and misses - all the while claiming to be a clubhouse pro.

 

[Saigon]

Billc -

Here is what you somehow missed during all of years of study....something called a dictionary:

Fascism

noun (sometimes capital)
1.
any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3.
prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Let me guess...the dictionary is wrong, and you know better, am I right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Damn, what a sick thread.

This is what the allowed into this country, little miss Saigon

^ This is why people run sock accounts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It bothers American Progressives that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were their ideological forefathers.

 

[bodecea]

Damn, what a sick thread.

Well, now we know PC is a Holocaust Denier. All else pales in comparison to that.

 

[bodecea]

Damn, what a sick thread.

This is what the allowed into this country, little miss Saigon

Ravi: Damn, what a sick thread.

Actually, look at PC's second line of the OP: "So state some of those who deny that the Holocaust took place."
She's clearly quoting what "some" people say about the Holocaust. She isn't claiming that, herself. Pay attention and actually READ.

Also, just for the record, Nazism is the German term for NATIONAL SOCIALISM which is exactly what FDR & Obama are all about.

All that does is show she wants to hide behind the words of others....it's called plausible deniability. But it doesn't fool us.

 

[emilynghiem]

Billc -

Here is what you somehow missed during all of years of study....something called a dictionary:

Fascism

noun (sometimes capital)
1.
any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3.
prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Let me guess...the dictionary is wrong, and you know better, am I right?

Dear Saigon and Billc:
Thanks for sticking to the topic.

I agree that the most threatening tyrannical takeovers of govt
are the ones that mix "religious fundamentalism" associated with rightwing.
* What made the Holocaust so frightening is to think these were people
who followed the Bible, even stopping to sing hymnals like a church choir
before returning to their posts running the extermination camps (Peter Loth shows video
footage of these who believed they were doing the work of God as believers following scripture)
* And now the genocide by extreme Jihadists is also mixing religion with govt and militant forces.
So people naturally make the connection with "right wing" religion
that has Similar "patriarchal" traits of putting dominant males as the heads of authority over women and other followers as
lower in the pecking order and pack.

However, I see it is Equally valid for people on the Right to complain of
the Liberal Left abusing Party Politics to push their own partisan agenda and Political Beliefs.

Although this is not visibly and physically as "violent" as the oppression of the Holocaust and now ISIS,
the similar factor of dismissing and oppressing the DISSENTING members of the population,
and only recognizing the authority and beliefs of Party leaders that tow the party line,
is DISTURBING. (On one hand the liberal Democrat politicians CLAIM to defend prochoice and separation of church and state, but then turn around and suppress the same free choice of other beliefs, as with dissenting beliefs on marriage and health care, and instead impose a national policy based on their party's beliefs as "the only way" and overriding other beliefs.)

So I acknowledge the equal need to recognize the "fascist" analogy made of the left
when this mob mentality is applied to push Leftwing party politics, agenda and beliefs
as national policies, while at the same time denying this and claiming only the rightwing has pushed ideology in oppressive ways.

As a progressive prochoice Democrat, myself, I find it not only disturbing and distressing,
but up and down Depressing that I seem to be the only person I know coming from the Left who is pointing this out as anti-choice and oppressive. Even the Greens, Progressives and Occupy who were trying to address corporate corruption of the Democrat party are silenced. Those opinions only count if they align with the liberal Politicians for their agenda; and if not, nobody ever hears from these members who don't agree but are censored and only used for their votes.

The religious groups may be more visibly and historically violent in terms of organizing military force, but the leftwing are also guilty of abusing similar tactics and just MASKING it better.
the media is used to paint the left and right the way people want to paint these, even though the Greens and Occupy pointed out this is all part of the corporate game to divide and conquer.
The media and politicians continue to benefit from campaigns that play this same game as is.

To keep pushing the Secular policies of the left as "the law of the land" (from the belief in health care as a right to beliefs in gay marriage to the point of excluding and discriminating against Christians and conservatives who believe otherwise)
It is still suppressing of equal religious freedom and due process.
So it is still violation of human rights, disguised as something else.

It is more insidious that the left CLAIMS to be separating church and state
and keeping laws neutral by staying secular; but have instead gone too far
by excluding and demonizing beliefs that should be equally respected and accommodated.

The leftwing does this, too, but gets away with it
by disguising it in secular terms so it doesn't look like religion.

Until we recognize the political religion and beliefs on the left
as equally inappropriate to establish through the state "as any other religion,"
this fight will continue.

I look forward to the day when I am not the Only Democrat
standing up for political freedom and equality of political beliefs.

Neither denying the tactics of either left or right that have gone too far, but recognizing both left and right wing parties have done this and both need to stop the bullying and abuses of power.

 

[Saigon]

Emily -

One of the (many) mistakes made in this thread is assuming that fascism = tyranny = authoritarian = despot = big government.

Each of these words actually has its own definition and meaning, and although there is crossover between the terms, they are not simply interchangeable.

I would absolutely agree that tyranny occurs on the left and right wings, and I would say the same about authoritarianism. There are a dozen recent examples of left-wing tyranny, and a dozen recent examples of right-wing tyranny. Hence, playing these "Go Team!" games with words in order to try make the other Team look bad - as P Chic attempts to do on this thread - is childish, reductionist and incredibly stupid.

There is no political ideology that cannot be distorted into tyranny, nor is there any religion that cannot be distorted for political gain.

Likewise, distorting the meaning of words in order to try to clean the slate of a particular political philosophy is despicable. As soon as people start arguing with dictionary definitions and seeking to impose their own definitions of what century-old words mean, society has a serious problem, as this thread demonstrates.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Damn, what a sick thread.

This is what the allowed into this country, little miss Saigon

^ This is why people run sock accounts

exactly

 

[emilynghiem]

It bothers American Progressives that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were their ideological forefathers.

From what I understand, the progressives came from Roosevelt's campaigns
to use govt to manage the country's economic and social services to recover from the Depression.

this was supposed to be a temporary program to go through govt to help rebuild areas
that didn't have enough localized resources to rebuild on their own. (If you look up the
leadership of Jesse Jones, Houston had the ability for local private investors to lend and
bail out banks from failing, but when such efforts were tried on a national scale,
going through federal govt to reach other regions that didn't have enough local support created dependency instead)

So it ended up becoming a dependent relationship with handouts through govt,
when the original plan was to invest in rebuilding
until the private sector could return to independence and self-sufficience.

Welfare and medical and social services were opposed (and still are) not supported
by many unless it was enforced to stick to the short term goals as *temporary programs only.*

These programs were extended, and continue to today,
but this was not the original agreement. Unlike microlending programs
that have built in education and business plans to make sure recipients
pay back what they receive as loans, govt is not equipped to manage the one-on-one
longterm education training and mentorship for each recipient
so these social programs have operated as handouts. even student loans are not managed cost effectively
where these can be paid back but are now being forgiven and dumped on taxpayers.

What's interesting to me is that leaders on all sides
from Obama to Dr. Ben Carson support
microlending and education to replace welfare handouts
that we all know are not sustainable and keep people in poverty.

If we set aside party politics, maybe more leaders
could unite around sustainable solutions
and share credit instead of projecting blame back and forth.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily -

One of the (many) mistakes made in this thread is assuming that fascism = tyranny = authoritarian = despot = big government.

Each of these words actually has its own definition and meaning, and although there is crossover between the terms, they are not simply interchangeable.

I would absolutely agree that tyranny occurs on the left and right wings, and I would say the same about authoritarianism. There are a dozen recent examples of left-wing tyranny, and a dozen recent examples of right-wing tyranny. Hence, playing these "Go Team!" games with words in order to try make the other Team look bad - as P Chic attempts to do on this thread - is childish, reductionist and incredibly stupid.

There is no political ideology that cannot be distorted into tyranny, nor is there any religion that cannot be distorted for political gain.

Likewise, distorting the meaning of words in order to try to clean the slate of a particular political philosophy is despicable. As soon as people start arguing with dictionary definitions and seeking to impose their own definitions of what century-old words mean, society has a serious problem, as this thread demonstrates.

Ok let's try to stick to where we agree first
1. we agree that the authoritarian abuses and tyrannical paradigm
occurs on both left and right. agreed
2. as for fascism < not equal to > big government
can we agree that once any collective entity (whether a political or religious group,
corporation, even a nonprofit charity like Red Cross caught mishandling huge donations)
amasses greater resources, influence, or power than an individual person,
then this Big Collective runs the risk of abuse
that is greater than just trying to check one person.
And that is why we have the Bill of Rights to try to check Govt,
but this same problem applies to any group.
It is not just religious, but political parties and corporations abuse their collective influence and power.

Even if the bigness is not the problem itself,
do we agree the bigger the bureaucracy the
greater chances of this getting corrupted for lack of direct checks?

So bigger groups need to break down into smaller modules for accountability checks
or things get lost in the shuffle.

Can we agree this explains why people
fear big govt as associated with tyranny because it opens the door to abuses.

3. as for redefining terms
this reminds me of people who don't want marriage redefined.

can we stick to what concepts we agree with or don't agree with,
and maybe the terminology will follow from there. otherwise we will fight over that.

if we run into these problems where people cannot see or use words the same way,
perhaps we'll just have to deal with that. I don't know if that can be resolved,
as with the marriage issue where some people cannot change the definition,
and some people cannot have equality unless something changes. I don't think this is anyone's fault.

We may have to accept the fact the words are not going to serve us perfectly,
because people's beliefs and word perceptions are not the same and cannot be helped.
I don't think it is fair to criticize people if they have associations that are different,
and I prefer to find other ways to work around it if they cannot help it.

 

[Saigon]

Emily -

You make a lot of points, but I just want to focus on the issue of big government, because that is crucial here.

One of the other (many) mistakes made on this thread is to apply 21st century US terminology and thinking to Europe in 1939.

If big government = tyranny, then ALL governments in 1940 were tyrannical.

The whole idea of streamlining and downsizing adminsitrations, both public and private, really only came into focus during the 1980s or even 1990s - largely because of the global economic meltdown accompanying the fall of the Berlin wall, and the Reagan-Thatcher views on free market economics. Since then, the focus on 'big government' has maintained a high profile in the US, but less so elsewhere. In Europe, the idea of small government has never really been a big issue. It certainly isn't a major left/right issue as it is in the US, probably because a lot of left-wing adminstrations also slashed public sector jobs in the 1990s.

So on this thread we see posters claiming Hitler must be left wing because he ran a massive public sector. The problem with this thinking is that so did every other country in the developed world.

The schism between left and right wing thinking in Europe in 1940 did not depend on big vs small government, but on the role of a) class and b) capital.

In these senses, the various administrations in Europe fall quite clearly into left and right wing camps, with the right wing backing a class-based society with a strong upper and middle class; while the left looked to smash class structures. The right wing promoted the ownership of shares and used dividends to ensure the wealthy elite remained wealthy, thus ensuring their political support; the left wing looked to remove capital from the equation altogether.

These are very simple explanations for very complex issues, but hopefully they get the point across, anyway.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Emily -

One of the (many) mistakes made in this thread is assuming that fascism = tyranny = authoritarian = despot = big government.

Each of these words actually has its own definition and meaning, and although there is crossover between the terms, they are not simply interchangeable.

I would absolutely agree that tyranny occurs on the left and right wings, and I would say the same about authoritarianism. There are a dozen recent examples of left-wing tyranny, and a dozen recent examples of right-wing tyranny. Hence, playing these "Go Team!" games with words in order to try make the other Team look bad - as P Chic attempts to do on this thread - is childish, reductionist and incredibly stupid.

There is no political ideology that cannot be distorted into tyranny, nor is there any religion that cannot be distorted for political gain.

Likewise, distorting the meaning of words in order to try to clean the slate of a particular political philosophy is despicable. As soon as people start arguing with dictionary definitions and seeking to impose their own definitions of what century-old words mean, society has a serious problem, as this thread demonstrates.

Ok let's try to stick to where we agree first
1. we agree that the authoritarian abuses and tyrannical paradigm
occurs on both left and right. agreed
2. as for fascism < not equal to > big government
can we agree that once any collective entity (whether a political or religious group,
corporation, even a nonprofit charity like Red Cross caught mishandling huge donations)
amasses greater resources, influence, or power than an individual person,
then this Big Collective runs the risk of abuse
that is greater than just trying to check one person.
And that is why we have the Bill of Rights to try to check Govt,
but this same problem applies to any group.
It is not just religious, but political parties and corporations abuse their collective influence and power.

Even if the bigness is not the problem itself,
do we agree the bigger the bureaucracy the
greater chances of this getting corrupted for lack of direct checks?

So bigger groups need to break down into smaller modules for accountability checks
or things get lost in the shuffle.

Can we agree this explains why people
fear big govt as associated with tyranny because it opens the door to abuses.

3. as for redefining terms
this reminds me of people who don't want marriage redefined.

can we stick to what concepts we agree with or don't agree with,
and maybe the terminology will follow from there. otherwise we will fight over that.

if we run into these problems where people cannot see or use words the same way,
perhaps we'll just have to deal with that. I don't know if that can be resolved,
as with the marriage issue where some people cannot change the definition,
and some people cannot have equality unless something changes. I don't think this is anyone's fault.

We may have to accept the fact the words are not going to serve us perfectly,
because people's beliefs and word perceptions are not the same and cannot be helped.
I don't think it is fair to criticize people if they have associations that are different,
and I prefer to find other ways to work around it if they cannot help it.

the founders believed that big government led to corruptness

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."Benjamin Franklin

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily -

One of the (many) mistakes made in this thread is assuming that fascism = tyranny = authoritarian = despot = big government.

Each of these words actually has its own definition and meaning, and although there is crossover between the terms, they are not simply interchangeable.

I would absolutely agree that tyranny occurs on the left and right wings, and I would say the same about authoritarianism. There are a dozen recent examples of left-wing tyranny, and a dozen recent examples of right-wing tyranny. Hence, playing these "Go Team!" games with words in order to try make the other Team look bad - as P Chic attempts to do on this thread - is childish, reductionist and incredibly stupid.

There is no political ideology that cannot be distorted into tyranny, nor is there any religion that cannot be distorted for political gain.

Likewise, distorting the meaning of words in order to try to clean the slate of a particular political philosophy is despicable. As soon as people start arguing with dictionary definitions and seeking to impose their own definitions of what century-old words mean, society has a serious problem, as this thread demonstrates.

Ok let's try to stick to where we agree first
1. we agree that the authoritarian abuses and tyrannical paradigm
occurs on both left and right. agreed
2. as for fascism < not equal to > big government
can we agree that once any collective entity (whether a political or religious group,
corporation, even a nonprofit charity like Red Cross caught mishandling huge donations)
amasses greater resources, influence, or power than an individual person,
then this Big Collective runs the risk of abuse
that is greater than just trying to check one person.
And that is why we have the Bill of Rights to try to check Govt,
but this same problem applies to any group.
It is not just religious, but political parties and corporations abuse their collective influence and power.

Even if the bigness is not the problem itself,
do we agree the bigger the bureaucracy the
greater chances of this getting corrupted for lack of direct checks?

So bigger groups need to break down into smaller modules for accountability checks
or things get lost in the shuffle.

Can we agree this explains why people
fear big govt as associated with tyranny because it opens the door to abuses.

3. as for redefining terms
this reminds me of people who don't want marriage redefined.

can we stick to what concepts we agree with or don't agree with,
and maybe the terminology will follow from there. otherwise we will fight over that.

if we run into these problems where people cannot see or use words the same way,
perhaps we'll just have to deal with that. I don't know if that can be resolved,
as with the marriage issue where some people cannot change the definition,
and some people cannot have equality unless something changes. I don't think this is anyone's fault.

We may have to accept the fact the words are not going to serve us perfectly,
because people's beliefs and word perceptions are not the same and cannot be helped.
I don't think it is fair to criticize people if they have associations that are different,
and I prefer to find other ways to work around it if they cannot help it.

the founders believed that big government led to corruptness

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."Benjamin Franklin

Yes, but it is not synonymous but correlated.
Notice you said LED to corruptness, not was the same as.

We can have a big military but it does not need to be corrupted.
The key factor is if all the members are following the Constitution,
respecting due process and equal protection of the laws etc.

When we have more members of society, corporations and govt
all following the same Constitutional standards, we can handle big numbers and not
become a corrupt abused oppressive bureaucracy that is making
victims of us all.

We need to check each other as equals, and make sure all
large collective organizations follow the same system of due process
to prevent abuses of power resources and influence,
and we will achieve both -- getting rid of unchecked abuses
by setting up more localized and more direct accountability
and managing larger groups of people.

I agree it will mean streamlining the federal govt to just national level policies,
and delegating more responsibility for local management to states and to people.

People have to own the process for there to be accountability to each other.

To Constitutionalists on the Right, this is called limited govt and reserving
rights to the states and people.
To populists on the left, this means restoring democracy for the people
where govt represents the will of the people.

So either way we are talking about representing the people.
one group tends to see that as meaning going through govt to represent the people.
and the other group sees it as people int he private sector running and managing
things at the maximum level of autonomy and self govt while minimalizing federal govt.

but in the end, it will come out the same where the people are in charge
of localized management where people = equals = government.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily -

You make a lot of points, but I just want to focus on the issue of big government, because that is crucial here.

One of the other (many) mistakes made on this thread is to apply 21st century US terminology and thinking to Europe in 1939.

If big government = tyranny, then ALL governments in 1940 were tyrannical.

The whole idea of streamlining and downsizing adminsitrations, both public and private, really only came into focus during the 1980s or even 1990s - largely because of the global economic meltdown accompanying the fall of the Berlin wall, and the Reagan-Thatcher views on free market economics. Since then, the focus on 'big government' has maintained a high profile in the US, but less so elsewhere. In Europe, the idea of small government has never really been a big issue. It certainly isn't a major left/right issue as it is in the US, probably because a lot of left-wing adminstrations also slashed public sector jobs in the 1990s.

So on this thread we see posters claiming Hitler must be left wing because he ran a massive public sector. The problem with this thinking is that so did every other country in the developed world.

The schism between left and right wing thinking in Europe in 1940 did not depend on big vs small government, but on the role of a) class and b) capital.

In these senses, the various administrations in Europe fall quite clearly into left and right wing camps, with the right wing backing a class-based society with a strong upper and middle class; while the left looked to smash class structures. The right wing promoted the ownership of shares and used dividends to ensure the wealthy elite remained wealthy, thus ensuring their political support; the left wing looked to remove capital from the equation altogether.

These are very simple explanations for very complex issues, but hopefully they get the point across, anyway.

Hi Saigon
I think you make the same mistake by saying limited govt = corporate control run amok due to rightwing deregulation
as people who say Hitler holocaust = leftwing tyranny

Yes and no.

The corporate finagling hijacks both right and left politics.
The Greens and even the Occupy and Tea Party were pointing this out.
Even Milton Wolf a medical professional and cousin by marriage into Obama's own family
pleaded with Occupy and Tea Party to unite against "corporate cronyism" as the common enemy.

So you cannot say it is just "rightwing" corporatism when leftwing politicians take advantage too.
just like not saying Hitler is just leftwing marxism.

are we getting closer?

 

[Yarddog]

Is politicalchic really asking this question?

She is lonely

I think of you when I’m are lonely. Then I’m content to be alone.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is politicalchic really asking this question?

She is lonely

I think of you when I’m are lonely. Then I’m content to be alone.

P W N